The legal precedent came after a court unanimously agreed that a dentist did not violate the Civil Rights Act by terminating an assistant whom his wife considered a threat to their marriage.

Emirates 24/7 reports that dentist James Knight testified that he had told Melissa Nelson on several occasions that her clothing was too tight, revealing and "distracting".

However both parties claim that Nelson never flirted with Knight, and Nelson sued for wrongful dismissal arguing that she would not have been fired as a man.

In 2009 the pair began exchanging texts, which were initially work-related but became more suggestive, culminaing in Knight asking Nelson how often she had an orgasm.

When Knight's wife found out about the texts she demanded he fire Nelson, calling her a "big threat to our marriage".

The seven justices, all male, argued that the basic question presented by the case was "whether an employee who has not engaged in flirtatious conduct may be lawfully terminated simply because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction".

The court then ruled that bosses can fire workers they find too attractive and that such actions do not consitute unlawful discrimination.

Yeah where you could wear what you wanted to work and be hired or fired based on your performance not weather you looked "too attractive". I agree that employer's should have their rights over who they hire or fire (within reason) without the feds stepping in but you can't fire your workforce because you can't keep your mind out of the gutter. Let freedom ring!

Let me get this straight: in essence, what the judges are saying to the rest of us, is that it is this woman's fault that her boss can't behave in a professional manner in the workplace because she is "too attractive?"

Let me ask this question. At what point is a woman too attractive to work in a dentist's office? Is there a standardized scale we can consult for this situation? Is there a different scale for a doctor's office? A construction company? Or is the same scale regardless of workplace?

Is there another scale for men that are too attractive?

Just curious.

Don't misunderstand me. As a former sales manager, I believe any manager/owner has the right to hire and fire people using whatever standard they choose. But this guy's telling the world that he can't be professional around this woman, so she has to lose her job. Basically he can't be professional in the workplace.

__________________
"Three-fourths of the Earth's surface is water, and one-fourth is land. It is quite clear that the good Lord intended us to spend triple the amount of time fishing as taking care of the lawn." ~Chuck Clark

I guess in the end its what the dentist thought was "too hot" that counts.
Or was it really his wife that counts the most and if he wants to remain married?

In the end are the rights of the owner of the business less important than the rights of the employee? I would argue that the owners rights are more important than the employee. His freedoms are more at risk as a business owner than an employee is.
The employee can walk out and leave at any time with no repercussions.
The employer can fire the employee at anytime but it costs him to do so, and he has to fear these foolish law suits. After it was all done and said I'll bet the dentist paid a bundle to get out of this and it cost the assistant nothing out of her pocket.

Believe me when I say that as a business owner you know that if you hire a "member of a protected group", if you have to fire that person you are open to all sorts of possible problems. You won't hire that person in the first place.